Jahmaine

Someone that speaks in a similar style, not so much a question and answer type style like people like Eckhart or Sadhguru do sometimes.

Just like in Leos video about becoming infinite, what does it feel like on a practical level being infinite in infinite dimensions all happening at the same time- I understand it’s probably overwhelming and you have to experience it to truly know, but I mean like do you literally feel as though you become or embody literally everything simultaneously? And instead of a sequence of events you just experience it all at once in the now? Or is it a nothingness experience and within that you’re able to imagine all scenarios at once? What’s the first person experience of infinity? How is the infinity being “perceived”? What happens when you just become directly aware of infinity?

Why is it that I can understand in concept oneness and it’s ramifications, as well as things like “people’s opinions of you don’t matter” - yet I could still have experiences or go through life in ways that would suggest that I do care what other people’s opinions of me are. If it’s something like “I haven’t realised the truth of it yet” then how does that happen? Because I’ve contemplated it for long periods of time - I understand that other people’s opinions of you literally has no power over my life unless I give it that power.

Is it plausible to say that it’s within the range of possibility that hypnosis could be used to put someone into a deep trance state (a meditative state), then maybe suggest certain “truths” about reality, in such a way that they then experience it as a living reality; maybe not as a permanent thing but maybe at least a enlightenment experience? Or are there limits on hypnosis or enlightenment that prevent this?

Sound like Eckhart lol, it’s true though what you’re saying and I agree. Would you say dropping everything is more effective than confront these fears head on to desensitise? Could someone live that reality without desensitising? So imagine if someone was a super shy person and never spoke to women, could that whole thing be overcome by dropping all associations with thoughts or does this person still have to go through a process that confronts it? Or is it just that desensitising is a form of spiritual practice that could lead you to that realisation anyway? so many questions lol

What happens in someone for understanding to happen? What mechanism is going on? So When A happens followed by B then that equals = understanding/insight If I say: “You only lose what you cling to” first there’s the mechanism of understand the words and the language, then the next part (if it happens) would be to get the deeper insight. even if someone just has to comtemplate it, what happens in the moment to allow for someone to “get it”? This is similar to Leo’s video about Comprehension having different degrees

Yeah that’s how you’d make it happen, just like contemplating, but I’m asking what’s actually happening on the inside that allows you to understand it? Why is it that we need a certain foundational understanding of something in order to understand other things; there’s certain things we can understand because we have language; but in the moment of understanding, what is happening? Even on this forum, what happens in the moment when you understand exactly what someone is asking?

Everything is made up, all symbols that we place on reality to communicate are made up and thus realitve.

@Leo Gura do you have any thing you can add here? Other than just having the experience itself.

Hypothetically speaking; what would it look like for someone to pursue the complete opposite of enlightenment? What would that look like? Would it just be a complete denial of reality and however that’s expressed? And what would an “Endarkment” experience or person be like? just an open question and curious for contrast.

What causes an insight to be induced? Why is it that just reading or hearing words doesn’t just give you insight? Would it be that someone has to understand the language and the context in the way that it’s meant? But then how does something like awakening or becoming enlightened work? How does a realisation happen? Or even imagine if the entire population was going to watch one 30 minute video, what mechanics of the presentation would be needed in order to induce insight and realisation in everyone that watches it? Almost like combining sales with spirituality in such a way that the nature of the presentation allows for the receiving end to fully understand both logically and intuitively what was being communicated.

Also what does experiencing an “event” feel like? Every moment is infinite, it can’t be quantified to a minimum amount, so would it be every single infinite moment of motion? Is motion even experienced?

So So based on that, a good technique that could be worked on in the future somehow, would be able to focus in on a particular place or be able to focus knowledge in a particular way whilst in this state, also considering the amount of time that the experience is happening. I have no idea have one would go about that, be it’d be something interesting. Its quite insightful, I’m guessing I was looking at the all knowing, all loving and all power as a individual being like a human having these traits as and being able to use them in an accessible way, when seemingly it’s just the “being” of all of those things. other than going down to specific universes with certain conditions, are you able to localise it in any way or is it equally all experiences the same amount?

Hmmm, so you become aware of everything but you don’t know everything? Would that be from another facet of awakening? As Leo would say. Isn’t it usually described as all knowing, all loving and everywhere at once? How does the all knowing part work in this? Or is all knowing meant as there’s infinite knowledge to be accessed, rather than it’s infinite knowledge actually being known?

Yeah I know doing it will be best, I’m just curious at how other people explain it. I’m due to have some within the near future. I’m just seeing if there’s a way to be able to communicate in more direct and efficient ways for certain experiences, I understand that no words can ever explain a direct experience, but words used in a certain way allow for people to understand more in depth exactly what’s being translated, just like Leo being in depth with his videos, so he covers all bases and is able to clearly directly communicate what he’s trying to say, as long as you watch it non judgementally. So with certain experiences like this, I’m seeing if we have the language capacity to help induce insights or give more clarity or more precisely “point” towards the truth, using the most of what we can with language. It’s like I could say when I walk, my experience in movement in the arms and legs, breathing in and out, touch sensation on the floor and my trainers; so using language I can more effectively translate what was happening as opposed to saying “I walked” - obviously actually going and walking will help you know the best personally but then do I understand walking enough to be able to use language to give someone else the more closely descriptive and accurate interpretation of it.

Yeah that makes sense, I didn’t think of that originally.

Well it can be described enough for someone to say they experienced infinity, so what was that like? Was it like an insight? A feeling? Just an awareness? Was it like imaginary? What was the first people experience that would’ve allowed for someone to say “that is infinity, this what I’m experiencing now is All Possibilities”

That sounds mad lol So what nothingness, are you simultaneously experiencing nothing? And I’m guessing all parallel universes as well? So It’s not focused on one particular distinction, so you wouldn’t feel being a planet per se by itself, it’ll be merged with the experience of being everything else as well? Is it possible to focus in one experience, say one that’s currently incomprehendable to us? Like why can’t someone experience infinity and then bring back knowledge to be immortal, for example, from a universe where myself as in individual had already discovered it and it was transferable to our universe, since that would be within the realm of all possibility. Or is it just out of control and you just have to surrender? or is it something like because it’s too short lived generally?

Why don’t we start off seeing triality and then see the union as a oneness? What would a triality world and philosophy teaching look like?

Yeah that makes sense, similar to me what Leo said, it’s the bare minimum to break duality.

So an insight can only happen if some desires to have an insight? i don’t think that’s the case. Also I’m asking about how to translate something to someone in such a way that they understand the insight. A bit like saying what would you have to say to induce the colour red into the mind for a blind person to see. How could someone speak in such a way and presentation style that it causes enlightenment to happen? What would that look like? - for example its obviously hypothetical

Lol, maybe in a parallel universe, where people perceive things as “you, me and (some other dimension of separation)” what a crazy world thatd be lol

Yes I do. The question I’m asking is akin to saying “why are the laws of physics the way the they are?” Just curious at what a hypothetical world would be like with a triality type structure, a parallel universe where death implies life and a new state of being, like death-life, or black implies white a grey; it’s all hypothetical obviously and has no use, it’s just a thought provoking question. In this type of world, what type of teachings would there be to show the triality illusion of the universe.

I’ve noticed this also whilst being on this forum, although I don’t think it’s necessarily the fault of actualized.org, seemingly just like what you said, people have taken things in a dogmatic way and not validated the insights for themselves. Personally I feel like the way Leo talks accommodates for both newbies in a certain sense and also people that have been keeping up, talks in a way that already assumed that the audience doesn’t know or understand what he’s saying prior to him saying it from- that type of demeanour has been adopted by some people that watch Leo and then they speak on here in the same way, which can come across as either condescending or ignorant, it’s like there’s a lot of people on here that would rather tell you should and shouldn’t do, whether you should even be asking a question or project their own views onto a question, rather than just responding to things accordingly. In that respect I understand why Leo’s style is the way it is, it’s speaking to all those types of people that would do the same thing naturally, which would be critique, judge, project onto it, etc... so a comprehensive and to the point type of stuff I feel like is there for those than can see to see properly but also as a general guide for those that aren’t open to certain things yet, let alone actually take the time the validate and understand it. Moderators also talk in this type of way, as if they know all the answers already, which is fine, sometimes Leo or a moderator may know the answer, but I feel the issue arises when it’s answered in a way that seems final or not open to debate, when it could be, it becomes more of an agony-aunt type relationship in some respects, rather than an open ground for the purpose of sharing knowing and growing collectively in a genuine non-judgemental way in the pursuit of truth. There’s obviously nothing wrong with anyone being any way they want to be, in an environment like this dogmatic or judgemental interactions wasn’t something I expected to see here, but it’s insightful to the general understandings of people in the world and the types of people that are interested in this work and their motivations for it; you can generally tell where someone is at in the journey by the questions the ask and the way they respond to. In my own personal experience, so far, the only person to be able to actually communicate in a respectful, non judgemental, curious and genuine has been Leo and I think because he’s like that, other people just submit their authority to it without validating it because “he’s done all the hard work” type of attitude. Ideology taken as truth is the big trap. Even if the ideology is aligned with truth, you’ll never experience and know it as truth if you don’t validate it for yourself, if you don’t validate it yourself then you’re in no position to be telling anyone to do this or be like that, because you literally don’t even know what you’re talking about.

Triality would be a three way version of duality, so for arguments sake, instead of us seeing a duality like black and white, a triality would be something like black white and grey. https://images.app.goo.gl/6vKKnkVQfbVYejt56